From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Singh v. Robertson

United States District Court, Central District of California
Jun 24, 2024
CV 21-9379-MWF (ADS) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 24, 2024)

Opinion

CV 21-9379-MWF (ADS)

06-24-2024

MICHAEL J. SINGH, Petitioner v. JAMES ROBERTSON, Warden, et al., Respondents.


ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition (Document No. 1), the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending the Petition be denied (“Report,” Docket No. 18), the Objections to the Report (Docket No. 19), and the other relevant records on file. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the portions of the Report to which the Objections are directed - essentially to the Report's analysis of the state appellate court's opinion under highly deferential AEDPA review (id. at 2-3). See Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011) (AEDPA imposes a “‘difficult to meet' and ‘highly deferential' standard for evaluating state-court rulings, which demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.” (internal citations omitted)). However, the Objections merely repeat Petitioner's argument in the Petition that was adequately discussed and rejected in the Report. (Docket No. 1 at 32-34; Docket No. 18 at 6-13; Docket No. 19 at 2-3). For the reasons stated in the Report, Petitioner has failed to overcome AEDPA's “formidable barrier” to relief. See Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12, 19 (2013) (AEDPA presents “a formidable barrier to federal habeas relief for prisoners whose claims have been adjudicated in state court”); United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 434 (9th Cir. 2023) (“the district court ha[s] no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each objection”).

Finally, for the reasons stated in the Report and this Order, a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

(1) the Report is ACCEPTED;

(2) the Petition and a COA are DENIED;

(3) Judgment be entered DISMISSING this action with prejudice.


Summaries of

Singh v. Robertson

United States District Court, Central District of California
Jun 24, 2024
CV 21-9379-MWF (ADS) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 24, 2024)
Case details for

Singh v. Robertson

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL J. SINGH, Petitioner v. JAMES ROBERTSON, Warden, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, Central District of California

Date published: Jun 24, 2024

Citations

CV 21-9379-MWF (ADS) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 24, 2024)